Charles
Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permission
to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]
Many
professions are challenged in regulating their member’s conduct. They need to
do so in ways that give the public confidence that the interests of the public
prevail over the interests of the members of the profession. Physicians, lawyers,
dentists, nurses, and other professional groups – including teachers - have sometimes
fallen short of achieving high levels of public confidence.
Courts
at various levels have said that teachers are held to a higher standard of
conduct than other professions because of the inherent vulnerability of
children and youth and because teacher misconduct can call the entire
institution of public schooling into disrepute.
The
Ministry of Education, through the office of the Commissioner of Teacher
Regulation, publishes the outcomes of investigations into certificate holders
whose conduct is deemed to have breached the “Standards for the Conduct, Competence and
Professional Education of Teachers in British Columbia.” Most
decisions are published as Consent Resolution Agreements, which succinctly and
formulaically detail the allegations, the findings and the consequence meted
out to the offending certificate holder. The sanctions can range from a
reprimand to suspension to the revocation of a teaching license.
Two
recent decisions from the office of the Commissioner of Teacher Regulation
raise an important question: What professional misconduct merits the
cancellation of an educator’s teaching certificate?
The
first case involved a secondary school teacher who developed a relationship with
a grade 12 student that transgressed the boundaries of acceptable professional
conduct. The teacher and the student exchanged more than 5,000 text messages of
which half were sent by the teacher to the student. The teacher said they[1]
enjoyed spending time with and loved the student, made negative comments about
the student’s parents and sibling; made derogatory remarks to the student about
another teacher; discussed sexuality and sexual orientation with the student;
shared personal information about the teacher’s childhood; commented about the
intelligence and attractiveness of the student; pressured the student to allow
the teacher to assist with school work; etc. The teacher gave the student gifts
and neglected to report to school authorities that the student discussed
self-harm.
The
school district issued the teacher with a letter of discipline, suspended the
teacher two months without pay, transferred the teacher to another school,
required the teacher to complete the course Reinforcing Respectful Boundaries
offered by the Justice Institute of B.C., and reported the teacher’s conduct to
the Teacher Regulation Branch of the Ministry of Education. The B.C.
Commissioner of Teacher Regulation entered into a consent agreement with the teacher
who admitted to the misconduct and accepted a 2-month plus 2-week suspension of
the teacher’s teaching certificate.
The second case concerns a high school
science teacher whose demeanor was negative, aggressive, and visibly frustrated
in his interaction with students. He disclosed to students that he had gambled,
been employed as a bouncer, and details of his sex life; posted a photo of
himself and his wife on his publicly accessible Facebook page in which he and
his spouse appeared to be nude; and possessed homophobic, sexist and racist
memes that he stored on a school-issued computer and some of which he shared
with students. The teacher said that a student whom he alleged was a cheater
should get a sexually transmitted disease. He refused a student permission to
go to the washroom because “you cannot run away from life’s problems.” The teacher also made other inappropriate and
disparaging remarks to students such as telling a student whose father was from
Iran that, if he did not get good marks, he would be sent into the minefields;
telling exchange students to go back to work on rice farms; asked a student of
Japanese ancestry if he had failed to answer a question correctly because he
had been watching pornography. The
teacher also engaged in other professionally inappropriate behaviour.
The teacher, who resigned his teaching position in 2018, had
been issued with a letter of discipline in 2008 and suspended with pay from
January 22, 2008 to January 3 I, 2 009 and suspended without pay from February
1, 2009 until June 30, 2009. The letter and suspensions arose from allegations
that the teacher “had made comments to students that were discriminatory,
offensive, threatening and otherwise inappropriate, and that on one occasion,
he had used physical force against a student.” The District required the
teacher to complete anger management training, an anti-racism program, and to
undergo medical treatment and counselling. He subsequently returned to work and
engaged in further misconduct that, in 2019, resulted in the BC Commissioner of
Teacher Regulation entering into a consent resolution agreement with the
teacher. The teacher admitted that his behaviour constituted professional
misconduct and was given a three-day suspension of his certificate.
The teacher’s actions in
the first case are indicative that the teacher was preparing the student for
sexual exploitation (“grooming”). This is not an example of a teacher who made
a momentary error of judgement that one could expect the teacher to reflect
upon and alter. It displays a fundamental violation of the trust relationship
between teacher and student.
The actions described in
the consent resolution agreement for the second case reveal a pattern of
misconduct over time. According to the summary published by the Commissioner, the
teacher in the second case resigned his position with the Vancouver School
District. One might say that, in losing his teaching job, the teacher paid a severe
penalty for his misconduct. There is, however, a difference between losing
one’s employment and losing one’s license to practice. A teacher, after serving
a brief suspension, is eligible to teach - if the teacher can find a willing employer.
Without a license, no teacher can teach in any public school in the country.
The decisions of the
Commissioner are a matter of public record and prospective employers have
access to a password protected website that reveals that licensure status and
discipline history of any prospective employee. Most school districts use
application forms that require an applicant to disclose if he or she has ever
been subject to an investigation or disciplinary action as an educator. One
hopes that employers would be careful in vetting prospective employees
Not all teachers deserve
to retain their certificates. Some actions and breaches of the trust are so
severe as to merit the withdrawal of the privilege to practice that is
conferred by the license issued by the Ministry. The Supreme Court of Canada made
the point that it is important to uphold high standards of conduct for
public school teachers when it upheld the dismissal of a teacher for conduct that
compromised the positive, inclusive and non-discriminatory nature of the
learning environment. Based on the standards established in that case, the
teacher in the second case should have lost his license. His conduct created a
poisoned learning environment, caused significant harm to students, and
undermined the confidence that the public should have in its schools.
The Commissioner has
rendered his judgment in these cases. The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation
has discharged its obligation to represent these teachers before the Commissioner.
The BCTF could now revoke the teachers’ memberships, sending a clear message
that the teachers of British Columbia do not want them among their ranks.
[1]
The published case summary uses language that is designed to protect the
identity of the student and, therefore, of the teacher, including the use of
pronouns that may obscure the gender identities of the individuals.